Phil Rogers' Latest

[RockTheIvy]

 

I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

 

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me as a person. Leave it alone.

 

Hahah, that's great!

 

What's with all the FeartheCubs hate lately?

[fearthecubs]

 

I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

 

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me. Leave it alone.

 

Exactly the reason I'd guess he asked more information about you.

 

Whatever. If I was a janitor my opinion on the Cubs is less insightful than yours?

[rawaction]

 

I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

 

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me. Leave it alone.

 

Exactly the reason I'd guess he asked more information about you.

 

Whatever. If I was a janitor my opinion on the Cubs is less insightful than yours?

 

Maybe everyone should leave it alone. In fact, if you are asking for it to be left alone, why continue to comment?

[RockTheIvy]

 

I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

 

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me. Leave it alone.

 

Exactly the reason I'd guess he asked more information about you.

 

Whatever. If I was a janitor my opinion on the Cubs is less insightful than yours?

 

Nah, but I bet the Chubbs could you use for (wait, hold their attention, hold it!)

 

MOP-UP DUTY!!!

BOOYAH.

[Diffusion]

Damon's defense has been in a slide for several years now. His Zone Rating in 2001 was .935, and it has declined since, coming in at .910, .906, .879, and .874. That's a trend that can be expected to continue. Pierre, historically, isn't as good. However, he posted a .884 last year. The year before that, he was hobbled by leg problems (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that resulted in a .848. His ZR went up each year at Colorado, took a hit when he moved to ProPlayer stadium, and had he had a normal '04, would have progressed while with the Marlins. His numbers seem to be improving, while Damon's have gotten steadily worse. He passed Damon last year, and I expect the gap to widen. My belief that Pierre's a better CFer extends beyond the ridiculous notion that he is "fast and athletic," but rather, it's based on Damon's precipitous decline in the outfield. If you follow trends, Damon's numbers suggest he's going to be a scary-bad outfielder in the very near future.

 

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile.

[JC]

 

I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

 

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me. Leave it alone.

 

Exactly the reason I'd guess he asked more information about you.

 

Whatever. If I was a janitor my opinion on the Cubs is less insightful than yours?

 

Now, be careful. I just put 2 and 2 together. I never said anything about who you were or the value of your opinion either way.

 

But, the question in your immediate response avoids and diverts the issue you were discussing with M&P. You were talking about an issue relating to financial concerns of a corporation. Therefore, a degree in international business would lead one to a fair inference that you would likely have more experience/knowledge on the topic than others, including a janitor. Don't get so worked up that you start lashing out at everyone.

[Mizzou]

Who cares what anyone's degree is in? We're here to talk about the Cubs (I assume that of everyone) not talk about resumes.

[oldcubsfan]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

[Jehrico]

Damon's defense has been in a slide for several years now. His Zone Rating in 2001 was .935, and it has declined since, coming in at .910, .906, .879, and .874. That's a trend that can be expected to continue. Pierre, historically, isn't as good. However, he posted a .884 last year. The year before that, he was hobbled by leg problems (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that resulted in a .848. His ZR went up each year at Colorado, took a hit when he moved to ProPlayer stadium, and had he had a normal '04, would have progressed while with the Marlins. His numbers seem to be improving, while Damon's have gotten steadily worse. He passed Damon last year, and I expect the gap to widen. My belief that Pierre's a better CFer extends beyond the ridiculous notion that he is "fast and athletic," but rather, it's based on Damon's precipitous decline in the outfield. If you follow trends, Damon's numbers suggest he's going to be a scary-bad outfielder in the very near future.

 

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile.

 

Like it or not, it is reliable to show a trend in a player's performance, provided he's on the same team. Stadium, team, quality of a pitchers staff, etc, can have impacts on Zone Rating. Damon's numbers have declined every year in Boston, there's no reason to expect improvement from him next year, or even holding even.

[JC]

Who cares what anyone's degree is in? We're here to talk about the Cubs (I assume that of everyone) not talk about resumes.

 

Its not such an impermissible question. Afterall, nobody is required to respond. If a poster is curious about another poster's background, I don't see why they should be precluded from asking. Of course, it is "buyer beware" with regard to whether you choose to believe it or not. It certainly isn't unheard of for people to lie on message boards, even this one.

 

I didn't find the question to be offbase in light of the topic.

[rawaction]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

He also doesn't have a big long-term contract or require you to take on Mike Lowell. Better player doesn't necessarily mean that he will require more in a trade. There are plenty of other factors that go into a player's "worth".

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Who cares what anyone's degree is in? We're here to talk about the Cubs (I assume that of everyone) not talk about resumes.

 

That's not it at all. I was simply looking for insight into the way he/she thinks.

 

People need to stop being so sensitive. If anyone is so offended about having their opinions/ideas challenged, then they need to either develop conviction or bolster their arguments.

[CubinNY]

If anyone is so offended about having their opinions/ideas challenged, then they need to either develop conviction or bolster their arguments.

 

Exactly. Have an opinon. But be ready to back it up.

[CuseCubFan69]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

[JC]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

 

Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles.

[Jehrico]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

 

Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles.

 

I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter.

[Mizzou]

Who cares what anyone's degree is in? We're here to talk about the Cubs (I assume that of everyone) not talk about resumes.

 

That's not it at all. I was simply looking for insight into the way he/she thinks.

 

Fair enough. I've noticed that people have been much more argumentative on here lately (not necessarily you) and just thought the comment was out of line. Now that I understand where you were coming from, I realize that I was wrong.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Who cares what anyone's degree is in? We're here to talk about the Cubs (I assume that of everyone) not talk about resumes.

 

That's not it at all. I was simply looking for insight into the way he/she thinks.

 

Fair enough. I've noticed that people have been much more argumentative on here lately (not necessarily you) and just thought the comment was out of line. Now that I understand where you were coming from, I realize that I was wrong.

 

No problem. Maybe I have been contributing to the argumentative feel around here. I just wish people would back up what they say and it gets frustrating when people offer up opinion after opinion without solid justification for their views. :( I'll try to tone it down. Some people just want to sit back and enjoy.

[oldcubsfan]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

 

Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles.

 

I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter.

 

I agree with you on Bruce Levine. He is far superior to George Ofman who seems to read the papers for his "scoops". I'll go with Bruce Miles and Bruce Levine as the two best in Chicago. Levine at least admits when he is wrong, unlike many of the others.

[Jehrico]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

 

Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles.

 

I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter.

 

I agree with you on Bruce Levine. He is far superior to George Ofman who seems to read the papers for his "scoops". I'll go with Bruce Miles and Bruce Levine as the two best in Chicago. Levine at least admits when he is wrong, unlike many of the others.

 

I'll tell you who gets on my nerves most, though he's not a Chicago reporter...is Ken Rosenthal. That guy was pretty good throughout the late '90s, maybe even as far as a few years back in the early '00s. But he's digressed into one of the biggest windbags in the business ove the last couple of years. I don't know if he tried to start getting more scoops than Gammons or what, but he's horrible now.

[oldcubsfan]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

He also doesn't have a big long-term contract or require you to take on Mike Lowell. Better player doesn't necessarily mean that he will require more in a trade. There are plenty of other factors that go into a player's "worth".

It also seems to me that teams don't give up elite prospects for a guy who will be a free agent after the season.

BTW, Lowell isn't a bum, and I'd look for a big year in Fenway for him.

[nolanwood]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades?

 

Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

 

Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles.

 

I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter.

 

I agree with you on Bruce Levine. He is far superior to George Ofman who seems to read the papers for his "scoops". I'll go with Bruce Miles and Bruce Levine as the two best in Chicago. Levine at least admits when he is wrong, unlike many of the others.

 

 

Did Levine ever admit he was wrong after he mentioned there was big news involving the Cubs getting Dunn - or similiar - and mentioned more updates would follow later in the day.....then the day passed and nothing was mentioned about it.....then another day...and so on. I could be mistaken, but I've held a sore spot against Levine ever since that occurred.

[Diffusion]

Damon's defense has been in a slide for several years now. His Zone Rating in 2001 was .935, and it has declined since, coming in at .910, .906, .879, and .874. That's a trend that can be expected to continue. Pierre, historically, isn't as good. However, he posted a .884 last year. The year before that, he was hobbled by leg problems (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that resulted in a .848. His ZR went up each year at Colorado, took a hit when he moved to ProPlayer stadium, and had he had a normal '04, would have progressed while with the Marlins. His numbers seem to be improving, while Damon's have gotten steadily worse. He passed Damon last year, and I expect the gap to widen. My belief that Pierre's a better CFer extends beyond the ridiculous notion that he is "fast and athletic," but rather, it's based on Damon's precipitous decline in the outfield. If you follow trends, Damon's numbers suggest he's going to be a scary-bad outfielder in the very near future.

 

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile.

 

Like it or not, it is reliable to show a trend in a player's performance, provided he's on the same team. Stadium, team, quality of a pitchers staff, etc, can have impacts on Zone Rating. Damon's numbers have declined every year in Boston, there's no reason to expect improvement from him next year, or even holding even.

 

I don't dispute that there's been something of a decline in Damon's Zone Rating numbers, and indeed I don't dispute that there's been a decline in Damon's defence. He has lost a few steps of pace over the years, but the biggest factor was definately the collision with Damian Jackson in the 2003 postseason, which by his own confession still affects him today - he suffers from headaches, it's possible I'd suppose that his brain doesn't function quite as well as it used to in some ways, ways that perhaps affected his centre field play, and he's also maybe slightly more cautious in the field, perhaps just subconciously.

 

Let's suppose for a moment I put any stock in Johnny Damon's Zone Rating, or any other defensive metrics. I don't think that a single 4 point decline (from .910 to .906) can be regarded as indicative of anything whatsoever given the enormous natural year-to-year statistical variations that are possible. For the exact same reasons, I don't think that a single 5 point decline (from .879 to .874) means anything either. And I don't think that two 4/5 point declines in three years is that significant, because it's improbable to anywhere near the extent that you could only attribute it to decline.

 

No, the big problem for Damon, in terms of Zone Rating, still pretending that I put a great deal of value in it, is that after suffering the collision he then suffered a single 27 point decline, one that he showed little sign of significantly reversing in 2005. As such, though it's still too early to say, it looks as though his defence may have suffered permanently as a result of that collision in terms of Zone Rating. That's an observation that simply watching him play bears out to some extent.

 

None of this validates any part of your theorising though. Your position that Damon cannot reasonably be expected to even hold his own in terms of defence as measured by Zone Rating next year is completely untenable, seeing firstly as you've based that conclusion on a statistical trend that you simply cannot say exists at this stage, secondly as year-to-year statistical variation works both ways, up and down, and thirdly because I suppose it's possible that Damon may with time overcome the collision. The brain's a complicated thing, and I don't understand it. If anyone else here does, please opine.

 

Finally, the fact that Damon has suffered a one-off decline, or is suffering a gradual decline, which may be the case but right now is probably the less likely of the two possible explanations, doesn't necessarily mean that he's worse than Pierre at this stage. I can say quite definitively, and I did before, that Damon is still comfortably a better defender than Pierre, and that Damon is still above-average defensively at his position. I don't think it's necessary for me to run through the player's defensive skillsets again to explain why I think that that's the case, and I think my point about the comparative value of Zone Rating was well enough made in my last post that I don't need to repeat it.

[oldcubsfan]

He never said they were getting Dunn. He said they were close, and as far as I know they were, until Cinn. decided to do nothing. Remember the Griffey to the Sox talk? Cinn. backed away from all deals.